THE CONTEXT: For the first time in India’s parliamentary history, 60 Rajya Sabha MPs from the Opposition have moved a notice for the removal of the Chairman, Jagdeep Dhankhar, who also serves as the Vice-President of India. The motion is rooted in allegations of partisanship and biased conduct in the proceedings of the Upper House. This unprecedented development has sparked significant debate about institutional neutrality and democratic functioning in India.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURE:
-
- Role of Vice-President and Rajya Sabha Chairperson: Article 63 establishes the office of the Vice President, making it the second-highest constitutional position in the country. The Vice President serves a term of five years but can continue in office until a successor is appointed, ensuring continuity in governance.
- Article 64: It designates the Vice President as the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha (Council of States). This dual role emphasizes the vice president’s importance not only as a key executive figure but also as a presiding officer responsible for maintaining order and decorum in the Upper House.
- Removal Process under Article 67: Article 67 explicitly outlines the removal process for the Vice President, who also serves as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha:
- Resolution Requirement: A resolution to remove the vice president can be initiated in Rajya Sabha.
- Notice Period: Before a resolution can be moved, a minimum notice period of 14 days is required. This provision ensures that due process is followed and gives members adequate time to consider their positions on such a significant matter.
- Passing in Rajya Sabha: The resolution must be passed by an effective majority of all the then members of the Rajya Sabha. An effective majority means more than 50% of the total membership of the House, not just those present and voting.
- Agreement by Lok Sabha: After passing the Rajya Sabha, the Lok Sabha must also agree to the resolution (House of the People). The Lok Sabha must pass it by a simple majority, more than 50% of members present and voting.
- Majority Vote: The resolution must achieve an absolute majority in both Houses—more than half of all members in the Rajya Sabha and a simple majority in the Lok Sabha. This high threshold protects against arbitrary removals and maintains stability within high offices.
- No Presiding Over Proceedings: While considering such a resolution, Article 92 specifies that neither the Chairman nor the Deputy Chairman can preside over their removal proceedings. However, they can participate in discussions but not vote on any matter during these proceedings.
KEY GRIEVANCES:
-
- Partisan Conduct: Opposition leaders, including Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, have accused Dhankhar of repeatedly interrupting Opposition speeches, stifling their ability to raise critical issues. The Opposition alleges that Dhankhar has consistently denied legitimate requests from the Leader of Opposition to intervene and rebut statements made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House. DMK leader Tiruchi Siva pointed out that ruling party members are given the floor whenever they wish to speak, while Opposition members are often denied the opportunity.
- Public Statements: Opposition members have criticized Dhankhar for publicly praising the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and referring to himself as the “Eklavya of RSS” in July 2024, which they argue undermines the neutrality expected of his constitutional position. The motion submitted by Opposition MPs condemns Dhankhar’s repeated disparaging comments about Opposition members in public forums.
- Erosion of Dignity: Kharge and other Opposition leaders have accused Dhankhar of acting as an “impassioned spokesperson” for government policies at public forums across the country, compromising the dignity of his office. The Opposition alleges Dhankhar often resorts to schooling senior leaders and speaking to them like a headmaster, disregarding their experience and seniority.
IMPLICATIONS FOR DEMOCRACY:
-
- Checks and Balances: The perception that presiding officers are not neutral weakens the system of checks and balances crucial for democratic functioning. In 2023, only 38% of people believed that parliament could effectively hold the government accountable for its policies.
- Judicial Interventions: The Supreme Court’s observations in the 2019 case of Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil vs Hon’ble Speaker Karnataka highlight the growing concern over the neutrality of presiding officers. The court noted a “growing trend of speakers acting against the constitutional duty of being neutral”.
- Impact on Debate: The quality of parliamentary debate suffers when proceedings devolve into partisan confrontations. This was evident in the 2023 winter session, where 146 opposition party members were suspended, leading to crucial bills being passed without substantial discussion. The V-Dem Institute’s downgrading of India to an “electoral autocracy” in 2022 was partly based on declining press freedom and political liberties, essential for robust parliamentary debate.
- Opposition Space: A robust democracy requires space for dissent. However, the current political climate in India shows signs of shrinking this space. The BTI Transformation Index 2024 report notes that the government has been pursuing an agenda to transform India into a Hindu-majoritarian state, potentially marginalizing minority voices.
- Legislative Efficiency: While voter turnout remains high in India, a growing anti-incumbency trend indicates dissatisfaction with governance outcomes. This paradox of high electoral participation but low trust in elected representatives poses challenges for effective legislation.
- Centralization of Power: Since 2014, there has been a steady shift towards the centralization of executive power, sustained by the personality cult around Prime Minister Modi. This unchecked trend could further erode the space for opposition and diverse viewpoints in parliamentary proceedings.
THE WAY FORWARD:
-
- Strengthen the independence of presiding officers: Implement a non-partisan selection process for Speakers and Chairpersons, like the UK model where the Speaker resigns from their political party upon election. Establish a binding code of conduct for presiding officers emphasizing impartiality, transparency, and accountability.
- Institutionalizing Mechanisms for Opposition Space: Adopt a fixed legislative calendar as recommended by the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution. This would provide adequate time for Opposition debates and discussions. Institutionalize regular all-party meetings before sessions to ensure consensus on contentious issues.
- Enhancing Parliamentary Decorum and Debate: Revise time allocation rules to ensure equitable speaking opportunities for both ruling and Opposition members. Enforce a comprehensive code of conduct for MPs to ensure discipline during debates. The Ethics Committee of Parliament should actively monitor breaches.
- Oversight and Accountability: Establish a Parliamentary Ombudsman or Ethics Commission with quasi-judicial powers to investigate allegations against presiding officers. Article 67 provides a mechanism for removal but is rarely invoked due to procedural hurdles. Simplifying this process while maintaining safeguards against misuse can enhance accountability.
- Promoting Democratic Engagement Between Government and Opposition: Establish bipartisan forums within Parliament to foster dialogue on contentious issues. Revive the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy (PLCP)to mandate public and Opposition consultations before introducing major bills.
- Reforms in Parliamentary Procedures: Implement fixed parliamentary sessions as suggested by the Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC). This would prevent abrupt prorogation or curtailment of sessions. Strengthen Question Hour by ensuring that more time is allocated for Opposition questions. The Lok Sabha Secretariat introduced e-Parliament initiatives in 2020, enhancing transparency and efficiency in legislative processes. Expanding such initiatives can further improve procedural efficiency.
THE CONCLUSION:
The no-confidence motion against Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar reflects a critical moment in India’s parliamentary history. While procedural hurdles and numerical realities make its success unlikely, it raises important questions about institutional neutrality, democratic accountability, and the role of dissent in governance.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:
Q. Discuss the role of the Vice-President of India as the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. 2022
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q. Discuss the constitutional provisions regarding removing the Vice President of India. How do these provisions balance the need for accountability with the stability of constitutional offices?
SOURCE:
Spread the Word